Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a [edited] piece of paper'

Jonathan, I think I have addressed Baldwin twice in the past here, Once during the elections, as I recall, and now. There may have been more, but I don't recall. In every case, it was about his opinion pieces not being well founded in solid critical thinking.

I never said anything negative about him, his ministry, his integrity, or anything else. For you to imply otherwise is simply wrong. You said he was a trustworthy newsource, and I simply pointed out that he wasn't a newssource at all. He was an opinion writer.There is a big difference that I imagine you probably realize. I don't know why you wont' realize it publicly.

As I have said, my opinion of Baldwin is based on the things I have read that you have posted. If you want me to get a different opinion, then post something different. As of now, all I can comment on is what I have read, and that has included nothing but opinion.

 

Pastor Larry, if you go back and read the post, I never made the claim that Pastor Baldwin was a "newssource". I posted his opinion article that was about the "newssource" in the OP, then you stated, "Consdier the source through Jonathan. Neither Capitol Hill Blues or Chuck Baldwin are trustworthy sources of information."

I simply replied that Chuck Baldwin is a trustworty source of information, I never said "newssource". I have spoken with Pastor Baldwin quite a few times, I had dinner with him one evening and have enjoyed his sermons on a few occasions, while he may not be a "newssource", he is a great man of God and a very trustworthy source of information.

I appologize if I misunderstood your statement, I thought your saying he was not a trustworthy sources of information was a personal attack against him.

 

But here's what interesting to me, Jonathan. You complain about my comments about Baldwin's role in political discourse, saying it was "hateful" and now "negative." You asked how I would like it if someone was doing that to me.

Well, now, you are doing that to me, as is Poncho. Why aren't you going after yourself and Poncho for saying these negative and hateful things about me? Isn't that a double standard? It sure appears to be.

 

Isn't this contradictory? You "never made the claim" but "replied that"??? I made the initial statement. I just went back and looked it up to be sure. I couldn't remember who had brought it up initially, but I knew you had said that.

That may well be. I have no idea.

Thanks, no problem. All is well from this end.

 

Make that our constitutional rights. They'll be taking them from you and your family as well. Sometime this week as a matter of fact. Hope you pack a lunch, bring back up and wear that Nazi black mask your corporate globalist masters will issue to ya when ya come ta git me.

Speaking of family, will you eagerly drag your's off to the gulag to show what a "good American" you are as well?

Seige Heil! Or in the words of the great puppet in chief...bring em on. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh no my little poncho puppet...*MY* constitutional rights shall always be intact. You see - Ive sweated and bled for them. You however have only contributed spittle towards keeping them.

My family is fine, thanks, happily enjoying the merriment of the season. Maybe you should try that. Or do you see that as just another corporate attempt at getting you to buy cards, a tree, and a turkey? You poor thing.

No Nazi's here...&lt;personal attack deleted - LE&gt;

[ December 14, 2005, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

I have not read anything that lends any credibility to the hit piece on Capitol Blue. Therefore, at this moment, I do not believe it.

 

What's with the we? </font>[/QUOTE]What do you mean? "We" refers to the people who read here. We have seen you in the past become infatuated with some conspiracy theories, posting and defending some absurd ideas that you read somewhere, simply because they agree with your foregone conclusions. That shows a naivete about some issues that can be dangersous in evaluating ideas. It is simply an issue of being able to judge things with discernment.

 

Nevertheless, you should speak for yourself, not for unnamed others. You in no way speak for me, although I am one of the people who read here.

 

I have a problem with their tabloid tactics, which are well documented here on this board, and discussed frequently. For example, frequent exclusion of facts in a story to support a premise. How anyone can consider WND as credible is beyond me. Their routine lack of credibility is self evident.

 

I have a problem with their tabloid tactics, which are well documented here on this board, and discussed frequently. For example, frequent exclusion of facts in a story to support a premise. How anyone can consider WND as credible is beyond me. Their routine lack of credibility is self evident. </font>[/QUOTE]Just because they have ran some stories in the past that you didn't find acceptable doesn't mean that every columnist on their site "leaves his objective credibility suspect"

Here are some of the other columnists on WND, do you question their credibility as well:

David Limbaugh
Star Parker
Dave Ramsey
Ann Coulter
Michelle Malkin
Walter Williams
Larry Elder
Greg Laurie
Jesse Lee Peterson
Dr. Laura Schlessinger

The list goes on....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/commentary.asp#columnists

 

Is poncho a puppet? Is he naive and unable to judge things with discernment?

Absolutely not! Its people like johnv and pastor Bob who are blind, they think according to herd instinct trampling the truth valiantly proclaimed by poncho.

 

It is a generic we. It is a common use of the term.

 

You should have stuck with what I said, not what you "reckon." I didn't say anything about anyone agreeing with my perception of credible or not. I simply said that "we," those who read here, have seen you post some stuff that is wierd, off the wall, with no real basis in fact.

That's fine. I tend to agree. But I don't chase the conspiracy theories like you do.

State TV?? When did this happen? Or is this just a prime example that proves my point. Obviously, it is the latter. You prove my point while trying to disprove it. It is these kinds of statements that show a naivete about the way media and the like operate.

 

At least as far back as when there has been a media "blackout" to NOT show incoming flag draped caskets from Iraq. At least that long. Not that I want to see the caskets of our fallen heroes, but the American people should at least have the right to see them if we truly still have freedom of the press, which, apparently, we no longer have. So, on that point, at least, the press is controlled by the State.

 

Here's a pretty good website to use in order to avoid posting less than credible stories:

www.ap.org